Next Article in Journal
A Validated Composite Score Demonstrates Potential Superiority to MELD-Based Systems in Predicting Short-Term Survival in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis and Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis—A Preliminary Study
Previous Article in Journal
Congenital Cutis Verticis Gyrata in a Newborn with Turner Syndrome: A Rare Clinical Manifestation of This Chromosomal Disease with Trichoscopic Evaluation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 13
Issue 15
10.3390/diagnostics13152577
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Breast Self-Examination Practice and Its Determinants among Women in Indonesia: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression

by
Yohana Azhar
1,2,*,
Ricarhdo Valentino Hanafi
3,
Bony Wiem Lestari
4 and
Freda Susana Halim
1,5
1
Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung 40161, West Java, Indonesia
2
Department of Surgery, Oncology, Head and Neck Division, Hasan Sadikin Hospital, Bandung 40161, West Java, Indonesia
3
Department of General Surgery, Hasan Sadikin General Hospital, Bandung 40161, West Java, Indonesia
4
Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung 40161, West Java, Indonesia
5
Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Pelita Harapan University, Tangerang 15811, Banten, Indonesia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diagnostics 2023, 13(15), 2577; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13152577
Submission received: 31 May 2023 / Revised: 19 July 2023 / Accepted: 31 July 2023 / Published: 2 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Point-of-Care Diagnostics and Devices)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Breast cancer (BC) is a heavy burden for Indonesian healthcare, but there is still no thorough evaluation for Breast self-examination (BSE) practice as routine BC screening. In this study, we aimed to synthesize the pooled prevalence data of BSE practice, compare BSE practice prevalence between Java Island and non-Java Islands in Indonesia, and identify the determinants that we thought could affect the BSE practice in the Indonesian population. Intensive searches were conducted in Cochrane Library, PubMed, Google Scholar, and SINTA (Indonesian Web of Science and Technology Index) from September 2017–2022. We utilized Review Manager 5.4 for conducting the meta-analysis. We found the overall national prevalence of BSE practice was 43.14% (95% CI: 36.08, 50.20, p < 0.00001). BSE practice in Java Island was higher compared to non-Java Island (44.58% vs. 41.62%). The highest prevalence of BSE practice was found among university students, with a 49.90% prevalence. Good knowledge, good attitude toward BSE, family history of BC, family support, and BC information exposure were all statistically associated with a higher determinant of BSE practice. We concluded that BSE practice in Indonesia is still low, especially in non-Java Islands. Integrative and collaborative programs should be established to promote BSE as routine screening for BC.

1. Introduction

In Indonesia, BC has been a prodigious healthcare problem, as it is the most diagnosed cancer according to the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2020 [1,2]. Compared to other Southeast Asian countries, Indonesia was recorded for having the most newly diagnosed advanced stadium BC, affecting a poor prognosis and aggravating the healthcare burden [3,4,5]. These long-term issues were induced via low awareness of BC screening and education regarding the importance of mammography as an initial BC screening [2].
Breast self-examination (BSE), or Periksa Payudara Sendiri (SADARI) in Indonesian, is a once-a-month self-examination to inspect and evaluate any abnormalities in the breast [6,7]. The practice was initiated in the 1950s before the advanced tool mammography was introduced [6]. This examination is a simple, self-applied, at-home procedure to assist every woman with an early screening of their breasts to detect any differences, such as lumps [6,7]. Thus, early recognition and intervention could be achieved to avoid further complications at the earliest stage [6,7,8].
Although WHO and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) do not recommend this method as a regular screening, low-to-middle countries still encourage BSE practice as an early screening due to practicality, limited access, and unequal distribution of mammography [9,10,11]. Regarding mammography, unfortunately, the Indonesian Healthcare and Social Security Agency itself limits the standard BC screening such as mammography due to budget limitations [12,13].
Although BSE does not provide early detection for tumors in situ or <1 cm mass, it is still a practical diagnostic method to find a palpable mass, and therefore, it is still used and encouraged widely in Indonesia. Therefore, the authors thought it is necessary to explore a thorough evaluation of BSE practice prevalence in Indonesia, with the fundamental purpose of providing a proper BC screening and extenuating health care burden.
To understand the background of this research, one should also understand the uniqueness and complexity of healthcare in Indonesia. A population of 270 million people (2022) makes Indonesia the 4th most populous country in the world, with 60% of them living on Java Island [12]. Java Island is the most habituated island in the country, and its geographical nature is relatively simpler than other bigger and more remote islands, such as Kalimantan and Papua [12]. Economic centralization in Java Island worsens the issue, and the accessibility to proper healthcare facilities remains inequitable [12,14].
The country also consists of more than 1000 ethnic groups living on 17,000 islands; even within one island, many ethnic groups live together in harmony, although they have different cultural beliefs [12]. Such cultural differences in Indonesian society also contribute to the healthcare gap, as not every region on the same island, for instance, has the same opinion toward healthcare and awareness. All of the aforementioned factors contribute to the overall health issue awareness on non-Java Islands staying flattened and, therefore, need to be evaluated [12,13,14,15,16].
With such backgrounds and with the spirit to give better breast cancer screening to all Indonesian population, this study aims to synthesize the pooled prevalence data of BSE practice, compare BSE practice prevalence between Java Island and non-Java Islands in Indonesia, and identify the determinants which we thought could affect the BSE practice in Indonesian population.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Eligibility Criteria

For a systematic review of prevalence, we generated a CoCoPop (condition, context, population) framework to define the inclusion criteria [17]. (1) Condition: Breast self-examination (BSE); (2) Context: Java Island vs. non-Java Islands in Indonesia within the last five years of studies; (3) Population: Any eligible Indonesian women. Furthermore, we included observational studies (cross-sectional, cohort, and case controls) with English and Indonesian language restrictions.
We defined the exclusion criteria as follows: (1) unpublished articles, (2) studies with no outcome variable, (3) studies without mentioning the study population and qualitative studies, and (4) articles that were evaluated as low-quality studies.
This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) [18] and registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with registration number CRD42022362907.

2.2. Information Sources

We conducted intensive searches in Cochrane Library, PubMed, Google Scholar, and SINTA (Science and Technology Index)—Indonesian web-based research information from September 2017–2022.

2.3. Search Strategy

The following keywords for conducting the searches are “breast self-examination”, “BSE”, “Periksa Payudara Sendiri”, “SADARI”, “prevalence”, and “prevalensi”.

2.4. Selection Process

Two authors (YA and FSH) performed the preliminary screening of titles and abstracts independently. Any disagreement was consulted and deliberated with the senior author (BWL) until a final agreement was reached.

2.5. Data Collection Process

The qualified studies were assessed for full-text screening. Any study that matched the inclusion criteria would undergo data extraction (authors’ details, year of publication, patient’s characteristics, study design, and outcomes measured) via YA and FSH. Afterward, BWL evaluated and determined the included studies for qualitative and quantitative synthesis.

2.6. Data Items

The primary outcome is the prevalence of BSE (the proportion of a population who examined their breasts to detect abnormalities). The secondary outcomes are independent variables related to BSE practice, including knowledge about breast cancer, attitude toward breast cancer, family history of breast cancer, family support on BSE practice, information exposure on BSE, and educational status.

2.7. Study Risk of Bias Assessment

We used the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for studies reporting prevalence data to assess the methodological quality of a study and to identify the possibility of bias in its design, conduct, and analysis [17,19]. YA and FSH critically appraised the included studies for qualitative synthesis. There are nine questions with four standard answers (yes/no/unclear/not applicable), and overall appraisal will be judged with three categories (high/moderate/low quality) via YA and FSH. Total points of 1–3 are considered low quality, 4–6 points as moderate quality, and 7–9 points as high quality. Moreover, BWL will resolve any disparity.

2.8. Effect Measures

Prevalence data (primary outcome) are reported as a proportion, and the resultant of the meta-analysis will be categorized as prevalence with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The additional correlation of BSE practice with independent variables is described in odds ratio (OR) with a 95% CI. The summarized primary and secondary outcomes synthesis will be presented in forest plots.

2.9. Synthesis Methods

We utilized Review Manager 5.4 software for synthesizing the outcomes measured. A generic-inverse variance with random-effect models, assuming the individual study prevalence estimates follow a normal distribution to analyze the standard error (SE) and 95% CI. We calculated the SE from the prevalence using the following formula [20]:
S E = p 1 − p n
p = Prevalence
n = Sample size
A Mantel–Haenszel (M–H) formula with random-effect models was generated to synthesize the odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI for dichotomous variables. The heterogeneity of the results was explored using I-squared (I2) statistic, and overall judgments are categorized as low (0–25%), moderate (26–50%, and high (51–100%) degrees of heterogeneity.
We conducted a meta-regression with a random-effects model using a restricted-maximum likelihood for pre-specified variables, including regions, study population, publication year, and sample size, to identify the interaction effect of these variables in influencing the prevalence of BSE practice.

2.10. Publication Bias

We employed a funnel plot to assess the existence of qualitative publication bias. Egger’s regression test and Begg’s rank correlation method evaluate the asymmetry of the funnel plot in quantitative measurement.

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection

A total of 6994 records were identified using several databases (Google Scholar, PubMed, SINTA, and Cochrane Library). Initially, we identified 577 articles and proceeded to the screening titles, abstracts, and duplication, which excluded 221 articles. Following the full-text review, 310 articles were excluded due to the unavailability of reports on the outcome of interest, and five studies were assessed as low quality of study. Lastly, the final 41 articles were eligible for qualitative and quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). The summarized flow chart is presented in Figure 1.

3.2. Study Characteristics

The total sample size from 41 full-text publications is 6361 patients, which comprised 4414 and 1947 patients based on Java and Non-Java Islands, respectively [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61]. The study setting differed into four groups, including university-based (11 studies), school-based (11 studies), public health center-based (seven studies), and community-based (12 studies). All the studies were classified as cross-sectional designs. The detailed data characteristics of the included studies are presented in Table 1.

3.3. Risk of Bias in Studies

We conducted the study quality assessment using the JBI critical appraisal checklist for studies reporting prevalence data. All included studies’ scores ranged from 7–9, classified as high-quality (Supplementary Table S1).

3.4. The Pooled Analysis of Breast Self-Examination Practice Prevalence in Indonesia

The overall national prevalence of BSE practice was 43.14 [95% CI: 36.08, 50.20], p < 0.00001, followed by high heterogeneity with I2 = 100% (Figure 2). The lowest BSE practice prevalence was 0.91 [95% CI: 0.89, 0.93], observed by Cane PS et al. in 2019 in Aceh (non-Java region) [27], and the highest percentage was 90.00 [95% CI: 89.86, 90.14] conducted by Kurniawati T et al. in Lampung (non-Java region) [42]. The heterogeneity of the pooled analysis was considered high with I2 = 100%.
We conducted a subgroup analysis to compare the prevalence of BSE practice between two regions (Java vs. Non-Java), study settings, and population. Consequently, Java Island showed a higher percentage of prevalence in the determination of BSE practice with 44.58 [95% CI: 35.42, 53.75], p < 0.00001 compared to Non-Java Islands 41.62 [95% CI: 29.83, 53.41], p < 0.00001 (Figure 3A,B). The highest and lowest prevalence of BSE practice in Java Island was 74.47 [95% CI: 74.35, 74.59] observed by Zulaika C et al. [61] (2021) and 8.17 [95% CI: 8.15, 8.19] in Puspitasari YD et al. [46] (2021), respectively. Moreover, the pooled synthesis prevalence of BSE practice on Non-Java Islands revealed the highest percentage was 90.00 [95% CI: 89.86, 90.14] observed in Kurniawati T et al. [42] (2021) and the lowest prevalence demonstrated by Cane PS et al. [27] (2019) at 0.91 [95% CI: 0.89, 0.93].
We differed the prevalence analysis of BSE practice based on the study population and settings into four groups, comprising (1) university students, (2) school-aged students, (3) fertile women and public-health-center-based (PHC), and (4) fertile women in communities (Figure 4A–D). The following results were 49.90 [95% CI: 40.27, 59.33], p < 0.00001 from university students as the highest practice, followed by school-aged students with 42.51 [95% CI: 32.38, 52.64], p < 0.00001, fertile women in PHC at 40.66 [95% CI: 20.76, 60.56], p < 0.00001, and the lowermost practice at 39.06 [95% CI: 25.61, 52.50], p < 0.00001 from fertile women in communities group.

3.5. The Determinant Factors of Breast Self-Examination Practice in Indonesia

3.5.1. The Correlation between Breast Self-Examination Practice and Knowledge about Breast Cancer

Thirty studies (n = 3131) were assessed to generate a pooled analysis in which women with a good knowledge about breast cancer were statistically meant to practice BSE than those who had a poor knowledge [OR 4.82 (95% CI: 2.84, 8.18) p < 0.00001, I2 = 82%] (Figure 5A).

3.5.2. The Correlation between Breast Self-Examination Practice and Family History of Breast Cancer

Eight studies (n = 2920) were assessed to generate a pooled analysis in which women with a family history of breast cancer were statistically meant to practice BSE than those who had no family history [OR 1.80 (95% CI: 1.15, 2.82) p = 0.01, I2 = 54%] (Figure 5C).

3.5.3. The Correlation between Breast Self-Examination Practice and Family Support

Six studies (n = 833) were assessed to generate a pooled analysis in which women who had family support on BSE were statistically meant to practice BSE than those who had no family support [OR 4.90 (95% CI: 3.43, 7.00) p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%] (Figure 6A).

3.5.4. The Correlation between Breast Self-Examination Practice and Breast Cancer Information Exposure

Nine studies (n = 1139) were assessed to generate a pooled analysis in which women who were being exposed to breast cancer information were statistically meant to practice BSE [OR 2.64 (95% CI: 1.08, 6.48) p = 0.03, I2 = 85%] (Figure 6B).

3.5.5. The Correlation between Breast Self-Examination Practice and Educational Status

Five studies (n = 2533) were assessed to generate a pooled analysis in which women who had higher education status (vocational education or university) were statistically meant to practice BSE [OR 2.78 (95% CI: 1.70, 4.55) p < 0.0001, I2 = 54%] (Figure 6C) than those who had lower education status (up to senior high school).

3.6. Meta-Regression

We identified the risk factors influencing BSE practice’s prevalence with meta-regression. Our meta-regression revealed that variability in that outcome in the Indonesian population could not be explained by known study factors associated with predictors of prevalence rates (Supplementary Table S2). From our meta-regression analysis, it was revealed that the prevalence of breast self-examination in Indonesia was not significantly influenced by regions (p = 0.6597) (Supplementary Figure S1A), study population (p = 0.7407) (Supplementary Figure S1B), publication year (p = 0.1518) (Supplementary Figure S1C), nor sample size (p = 0.7352) (Supplementary Figure S1D).

3.7. Publication Bias

The national prevalence funnel plot demonstrated a symmetrical inverted plot distribution (Figure 7). Egger’s regression test (p = 0.0001) and Begg’s rank correlation method (p = 0.0246) revealed statistically significant results. These findings indicated no qualitative and quantitative publication bias within our meta-analysis on the overall national prevalence of BSE practice.
This section may be divided into subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn.

4. Discussion

In this research, we hypothesized that the overall BSE practice prevalence would be inferior to other countries. Additionally, we also hypothesized the non-Java BSE practice prevalence is expected to be lower than in the Java Island population due to the ongoing educational inequality in Indonesia, which influenced the current behaviors and awareness towards health practice [62]. Based on our knowledge, this is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to analyze the prevalence of BSE practice in Indonesia and to compare the Java and non-Java Island populations.
Although policies from WHO, CDC, and developed countries do not support BSE practice as a primary screening tool—several Asian countries, including Indonesia, continue to acknowledge the importance of BSE practice since mammography is not accessible equally among regions [30,31,63,64]. A study by Thaineau et al. in Thailand tracked a 1.9 million population regarding the risk of late-stage breast cancer in five years (2012–2017). They proved that non-regular BSE practice patients had a 1.319-fold higher risk than regular BSE practice patients [65].
Our overall national BSE practice prevalence (43.14%) was significantly lesser than in several studies. Amegbedzi et al. in Ghana showed an overall prevalence of BSE practice in adult women was 65% [10]. Consistently, a cohort study from Thailand demonstrated a 72% prevalence of BSE practice in well-informed patients and a slightly higher percentage (49.43%) in the study conducted in rural India in 2022 [63]. Nevertheless, our findings were higher than in Vietnam (15.25%) and Bangladesh (21%) [11,66]. For the population in Europe, we found a small study by Woynarowska–Soldan et al. (2019) [67] conducted in Polandia that concluded regular BSEs were performed only by 56.7% of the nurses. Almost half of the nurses failed to perform BSE due to unavailable information during the nursing profession [67].
Consistent with our hypothesis, we observed a higher prevalence of BSE practice on Java Island at 44.58% than on non-Java Islands at 41.62% (p-value 0.00001). According to this finding, some factors, such as better healthcare awareness, superior economic strength, and advanced healthcare facilities on Java Island, have potent contributions [68]. Interventions to strengthen BSE practice should include an exclusive focus on the non-Java Islands population, where subnational regions tended to practice inadequately. We suggested that cultural and social diversities should accompany health, financial, and technical support to increase BSE practice. Innovative programs in healthcare services should be explored, and investing in high-quality education, infrastructure, and communication systems must be boosted [69].
This meta-analysis revealed that women with lower educational status were less likely to perform BSE than women with higher educational status. The analysis of BSE practice among four groups based on the study population and settings revealed a higher tendency to perform BSE in the university students’ group at 49.90%, followed by school-aged students (42.51%), fertile women in Public Health Care/PHC (40.66%), and fertile women in communities (39.06%). The knowledge exposure of BSE practice was more likely responded to by women with university educations and supported by appropriate and higher health educational information within the environment. This finding also is supported by a study conducted in Ethiopia by Yeshitila et al. [9]. However, the lowest percentage of BSE practice was noted in fertile women in the communities group and should be given further attention. Approaches to improve breast education should be consolidated and expanded into the community sector or even individuals. A particular account must be sighted on the poor, less educated, and rural populations with a specific approach adapted according to local behaviors [69].
Other studies from Iran [70,71], Ghana [72,73], Nigeria [74], and Vietnam [11] supported our findings. Lower educational status is associated with a lower tendency of women to explore and receive breast health information. Furthermore, their intention toward personal healthcare and the opportunity to gain personal experience may be hampered. Raghupathi et al. stated the development of various skills and traits (including learned effectiveness, individual control, cognitive, and problem-solving abilities) due to educational exposure predisposes people towards improved health outcomes [75]. Therefore, we advised that more BC screening awareness and BSE practice exposure should be focused on women with low educational levels [76]. Our finding on breast cancer information exposure also supported the importance of breast cancer information that could shift the women’s behavior to perform BSE.
We also noticed a new phenomenon in several studies specifically conducted on young women mentioned that knowledge sharing via social media (such as WhatsApp, Instagram, Youtube, etc.) also encourages and helps young women learn BSE practices, especially in the COVID-19 pandemic era [39,77]. We believe that knowledge sharing via social media should be used more by the Indonesian government to enhance BSE practice in young women’s communities. This sharing via social media could also be a useful tool to spread knowledge of BSE to rural communities in remote areas in Indonesia. For those regions without internet access, we also suggest knowledge-sharing enhancements by family physicians or public health workers in the local community [78,79].
We noticed that family history of BC and family support drove women to perform BSEs. Family values and opinions are still closely tied to the cultural beliefs of Asian cultures and affect healthcare awareness [21,25,26,27,28,35,46]. This social phenomenon has proven true in Indonesian society, as shown in this study. These results reflected women’s willingness to check themselves when the family supports them to do so and if they do not consider it as a taboo or weird thing to do. Some of the participants also stated fear about the family history of breast cancer that might happen to them, thus leading them to practice BSE regularly. We conclude that their apprehension and surrounding support from family led to positive feedback on themselves, affecting the BSE participants. Studies from Turkey [80], Malaysia [81], and Saudi Arabia [82] supported these findings. This is also an important note for healthcare providers, as to enhance BSE practice, they need to educate the whole family more about the necessity of its practice in finding a concerning breast mass before it’s too late.
In this study, we also found an important additional finding (and we also acknowledge this as our limitation): most of the included studies (40 of 41 studies) were conducted in the western region of Indonesia. Only 1 study of BSE practices prevalence from Papua Island (the easternmost region of our country). Studies from other Indonesian east regions, such as Nusa Tenggara Timur and Maluku, were not found. It is known that the western region of Indonesia is relatively more economically and socially prosperous than the eastern region of Indonesia [12]. The eastern region of Indonesia has difficulty in healthcare deployment due to its demanding geographical nature, and much of its population is still living below Indonesian social welfare standards [12,14]. Therefore, we also suggest that studies of BSE practice prevalence should be conducted in these regions to give better BC screening and care for women in those areas.
We also noticed several other limitations in our study. All of the included studies are only cross-sectional studies; therefore, there could be recall bias. Additionally, all of the studies did not mention the quality, frequency, or regularity of BSE practice. An unequal proportional ratio of 1:3 total samples and most studies on non-Java Islands derived from western regions of Indonesia cause an unbalanced comparison between Java and non-Java Islands; thus, the findings may not be representative. Additionally, as we mentioned before, Indonesia consists of a highly diverse population; therefore, this study could not represent overall Indonesian society. We also admit that the high heterogeneity of the Indonesian population cannot be explained using meta-regression performed in the included studies, which influence the statistical calculations and their significance.

5. Conclusions

The overall national prevalence of BSE practice in Indonesia was significantly low (less than 50%), particularly in non-Java Islands. Higher education, knowledge of BC, attitude toward BSE, family history of BC, family support on BSE, and BC information exposure influenced participation in BSE practice. Collaborative programs should be enhanced with the government, health policymakers, and community health groups at the individual or community level to promote BSE as routine screening. Even though these findings are statistically significant, more well-structured, in-depth epidemiological analyses are needed to address unanswered questions, especially in Indonesia’s eastern regions.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/diagnostics13152577/s1, Figure S1: Bubble-plot for meta-regression. Meta-regression analysis showed that the prevalence of breast self-examination practice in Indonesia was not affected by regions (A), study population (B), publication year (C), nor sample size (D); Table S1: Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for studies reporting prevalence data; Table S2: Results of the meta-regression models for the national prevalence of breast self-examination practice in Indonesia.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.A. and F.S.H.; methodology, F.S.H. and R.V.H.; software, R.V.H.; validation, Y.A., R.V.H. and F.S.H.; formal analysis, Y.A.; investigation, Y.A. and R.V.H.; resources, R.V.H.; data curation, R.V.H.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.A. and F.S.H.; writing—review and editing, F.S.H. and B.W.L.; visualization, R.V.H.; supervision, F.S.H. and B.W.L.; project administration, Y.A.; funding acquisition, Y.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This article received central funding from Universitas Padjadjaran (2466/UN6.3.1/TU.00/2022).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data supporting reported results can be found at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7983569, accessed on 30 May 2023.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. World Health Organization. WHO Report on Cancer: Setting Priorities, Investing Wisely, and Providing Care for All. Geneva. 2020. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240001299 (accessed on 30 May 2023).
  2. Azhar, Y.; Agustina, H.; Abdurahman, M.; Achmad, D. Breast Cancer in West Java: Where Do We Stand and Go? Indones. J. Cancer 2020, 14, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ng, C.H.; Bhoo-Pathy, N.; Taib, N.A.; Teh, Y.C.; Mun, K.S.; Amiruddin, A.; Evlina, S.; Rhodes, A.; Yip, C.H. Comparison of breast cancer in Indonesia and Malaysia—A clinico-pathological study between Dharmais Cancer Centre Jakarta and University Malaya Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2011, 12, 2943–2946. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  4. Soekersi, H.; Azhar, Y.; Akbari, K.S. Role of Mammography In Breast Cancer Screening: A Literature Review. J. Indones. Med. Assoc. 2022, 72, 144–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Robinson, M.; Atmakusumah, T.D.; Irawan, C.; Shatri, H. Immunohistochemistry Profile of Breast Cancer Patients that Get Anthracyclin–Based Chemotherapy in RSUD Kota Bogor. J. Penyakit Dalam Indones. 2019, 6, 173–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Pippin, M.M.; Boyd, R. Breast Self Examination. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing. 2022. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK565846/?report=reader#_NBK565846_pubdet (accessed on 2 November 2022).
  7. National Breast Cancer Foundation. Breast Self-Exam. National Breast Cancer Foundation, Inc. 2022. Available online: https://www.nationalbreastcancer.org/breast-self-exam (accessed on 2 November 2022).
  8. Pearlman, M.; Jeudy, M.; Chelmow, D. Practice Bulletin Number 179. Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening in Average-Risk Women. Obstet. Gynecol. 2017, 130, E1–E16. [Google Scholar]
  9. Yeshitila, Y.G.; Kassa, G.M.; Gebeyehu, S.; Memiah, P.; Desta, M. Breast self-examination practice and its determinants among women in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0245252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Amegbedzi, R.A.; Komesuor, J.; Amu, H.; Tarkang, E.E. Factors Influencing the Practice of Breast Self-Examination among Female Tertiary Students in Ho, Ghana. Adv. Public Health 2022, 2022, 7724050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tuyen, D.Q.; Dung, T.V.; Van Dong, H.; Kien, T.T.; Huong, T.T. Breast Self-Examination: Knowledge and Practice Among Female Textile Workers in Vietnam. Cancer Control. 2019, 26, 1073274819862788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Suhariyanto, S. Statistical Yearbook of Indonesia 2020. Jakarta. 2020. Available online: https://www.bps.go.id/publication/2020/04/29/e9011b3155d45d70823c141f/statistik-indonesia-2020.html (accessed on 30 May 2023).
  13. Mahendradhata, Y.; Trisnantoro, L.; Listyadewi, S.; Soewondo, P.; Marthias, T.; Harimurti, P.; Prawira, J. The Republic of Indonesia health system review. WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia. Health Syst. Transit. 2017, 7. Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/254716 (accessed on 30 May 2023).
  14. KOMPAS Team. Anticipating Health Care Crisis Outside Java. Kompas. 2021. Available online: https://www.kompas.id/baca/english/2021/07/29/anticipating-health-care-crisis-outside-java/ (accessed on 2 November 2022).
  15. Putri, N.K.; Wulandari, R.D.; Syahansyah, R.J.; Grépin, K.A. Determinants of out-of-district health facility bypassing in East Java, Indonesia. Int. Health 2021, 13, 545–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Yurianto, A. Rencana Aksi Program (RAP) 2020–2024. Jakarta. 2020. Available online: https://e-renggar.kemkes.go.id/file_performance/1-029017-2tahunan-218.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2023).
  17. Munn, Z.; Moola, S.; Lisy, K.; Riitano, D.; Tufanaru, C. Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence data. JBI Evid. Implement. 2015, 13, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Page, M.J.; Moher, D.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Migliavaca, C.B.; Stein, C.; Colpani, V.; Munn, Z.; Falavigna, M. Quality assessment of prevalence studies: A systematic review. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2020, 127, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Arifin, W.N. Introduction to sample size calculation. Educ. Med. J. 2013, 5, e89–e96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Adimuntja, N.P.; Nurdin, M.A.; Ahmad, Z.F. Determinant of sadari behavior in the early detection effort of breast cancer among female students in the public health faculty of cenderawasih university. Jambura J. Health Sci. Res. 2022, 4, 574–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ajeng, A.A.A.; Gauri, E.A. Hubungan pengetahuan dan informasi dengan perilaku sadari di mts mathla’ul anwar kota tangerang tahun 2015. J. Komun. Kesehat. 2017, 8, 17–28. [Google Scholar]
  23. Amelia, C.; Susanti, R. Hubungan pengetahuan tentang kanker payudara dengan tindakan melakukan sadari pada wanita usia subur di wilayah kerja puskesmas kabil kota batam. Zona Kebidanan: Program Studi Kebidanan Univ. Batam 2021, 11, 21–28. [Google Scholar]
  24. Angrainy, R. Hubungan pengetahuan, sikap tentang sadari dalam mendeteksi dini kanker payudara pada remaja. J. Endur. Kaji. Ilm. Probl. Kesehat. 2017, 2, 232–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Arafah, A.B.R.; Notobroto, H.B. Faktor yang berhubungan dengan perilaku ibu rumah tangga melakukan pemeriksaan payudara sendiri (sadari). Indones. J. Public Health 2018, 12, 143–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Artikasari, L.; Herniawati, H.; Susilawati, E. Faktor-faktor yang berhubungan dengan perilaku wanita usia subuh terhadap deteksi dini ca mammae menggunakan teknik sadari. J. Ilm. Obs. 2021, 13, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  27. Cane, P.S.; Joharsah, J.; Lestari, F. Hubungan pengetahuan dan sikap tentang kanker payudara dengan tindakan sadari pada wanita usia subur di kecamatan lawe bulan kebupaten aceh tenggara tahun 2021. J. Matern. Kebidanan 2021, 6, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dewi, A.I.C.; Widyanthini, D.N.; Kurniasari, N.M.D. Tingkat pengetahuan, sikap dan perilaku wanita usia subur terhadap deteksi dini kanker payudara dengan metode sadari di wilayah kerja puskesmas iii denpasar utara tahun 2017. Arch. Community Health 2017, 4, 68–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Dewi, R.; Lisdyani, K.; Budhiana, J.; Tinggi Ilmu Kesehatan Sukabumi S. Correlation between knowledge and early detection of breast cancer of teenage girls in man 1 sukabumi working area of sekarwangi health sukabumi regency. J. Kesehat. Al-Irsyad 2021, 14, 68–78. [Google Scholar]
  30. Dewi, T.K.; Massar, K.; Ruiter, R.A.C.; Leonardi, T. Determinants of breast self-examination practice among women in Surabaya, Indonesia: An application of the health belief model. BMC Public Health 2019, 19, 1581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Dewi, T.K.; Ruiter, R.A.; Diering, M.; Ardi, R.; Massar, K. Breast self-examination as a route to early detection in a lower-middle-income country: Assessing psychosocial determinants among women in Surabaya, Indonesia. BMC Women’s Health 2022, 22, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Fahriani, M.; Sari, R.M.; Ramadhaniati, Y.; Conefi, E. The relationship between mother’s knowledge and breast self-examination (BSE) in the kembang mumpo health center work area. Midwifery Health J. 2021, 6, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Fatrin, T.; Apriani, N. Pengetahuan remaja putri tentang pemeriksaan payudara sendiri (sadari) dengan prilaku sadari sman 11 palembang. J. Kesehat. Abdurrahman 2020, 9, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ginting, L. Hubungan pengetahuan dengan pemeriksaan payudara sendiri (sadari) sebagai deteksi dini kanker payudara pada mahasiswa diii kebidanan stikes murni teguh. Indones. Trust. Health J. 2019, 1, 44–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hanifah, A.N.; Kirwono, B.; Wijayanti, A.C. Faktor-faktor yang berhubungan dengan perilaku wanita usia subur dalam melakukan deteksi dini kanker payudara metode sadari di wilayah kerja puskesmas nusukan surakarta. Univ. Muhammadiyah Surakarta 2017, 1, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  36. Hinga, I.A.T. Gambaran perilaku mahasiswi dalam pemeriksaan payudara sendiri (sadari). Chmk Health J. 2019, 3, 27–34. [Google Scholar]
  37. Immawati, I.; Utami, I.T. Correlation between breast cancer knowledge of student akper dharma wacana metro and behavior breast self-examination. Wacana Kesehat. 2017, 1, 154–162. [Google Scholar]
  38. Karnawati, P.W.W.; Suariyani, N.L.P. Faktor yang memengaruhi perilaku pemeriksaan payudara sendiri (sadari) pada wanita usia subur. Arch. Community Health 2022, 9, 150–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Khairunnissa, A.; Wahyuningsih, S.; Irsyad, N.S. Faktor-faktor yang berhubungan dengan perilaku pemeriksaan payudara sendiri (SADARI) pada mahasiswi Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Pembangunan Nasional “Veteran” Jakarta, 2017. J. Profesi Med. J. Kedokt. Dan Kesehat. 2017, 11, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Khotimah, S. Breast self-examination among reproductive women in caringin health center legok district tangerang regency in 2019. Health Sci. Midwifery 2019, 8, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  41. Kris, D.P. Hubungan antara pengetahuan tentang kanker payudara dengan perilaku pemeriksaan sadari. J. Bidan Pint. 2019, 1, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kurniawati, T.; Setiyowati, W.; Puspitasari, A. Hubungan tingkat pengetahuan sadari dengan praktik sadari pada remaja putri di desa sinar agung kecamatan way tenong kabupaten lampung barat. Midwifery Care J. 2021, 2, 97–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kusumaningrum, T.A.I.; Sari, N.K. Aplikasi health belief model pada perilaku mahasiswi kesehatan masyarakat dalam pemeriksaan payudara sendiri (sadarI). J. Kesehat. 2018, 11, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lula, F.; Wahjudi, P.; Prasetyowati, I. Determinan praktik sadari pada mahasiswi fakultas non kesehatan di universitas jember. J. Kesehat. 2018, 6, 68–75. [Google Scholar]
  45. Mularsih, S.; Cahyaningrum, F.; Rubiyanti, E.S. Hubungan tingkat pengetahuan dengan praktik sadari pada wanita usia subur di kelurahan kemijen semarang timur kota semarang. J. Siklus 2017, 6, 238–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Puspitasari, Y.D.; Susanto, T.; Nur, M.K.R. Relationship of the role of family with knowledge, attitude, and practice of breast self-examination (BSE) among adolescent girl in jelbuk sub-district jember, east java. J. Kesehat. Reproduksi 2019, 10, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Riadinata, R.; Pratiwi, F. Pengaruh tingkat pengetahuan ibu tentang kanker payudara dengan perilaku sadari pada ibu rumah tangga. J. Ilmu Kebidanan 2017, 3, 152–161. [Google Scholar]
  48. Sari, I.G.; Saputri, M.E.; Lubis, R. Factors related to conscious behavior in adolescent women at smk pandutama bogor in 2021. J. Penelit. Keperawatan Kontemporer 2022, 2, 98–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sari, R.J.; Lutan, D.; Syarifah, S. Determinan tindakan sadari sebagai deteksi dini kanker payudara pada wanita usia subur (wus) di desa pasar rawa kecamatan gebang kabupaten lengkat tahun 2015. J. Matern. Dan Neonatal 2017, 2, 26–34. [Google Scholar]
  50. Sari, W.Y.; Aisyah, S.; Yunola, S. Faktor-faktor yang berhubungan dengan praktik pemeriksaan payudara sendiri (sadari) pada siswi kelas xi man i palembang tahun 2021. J. Ilm. Univ. Batanghari Jambi 2022, 22, 177–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sebayang, W.B. Hubungan pengetahuan dan sikap dengan tindakan sadari dalam mendeteksi dini ca mammae pada wanita usia subur di klinik nana diana medan tahun 2018. J. Ilm. Kebidanan IMELDA 2018, 4, 589–593. [Google Scholar]
  52. Siboro, Y.K.; Rasyid, Z.; Alhidayati, A.; Syukaisih, S. Determinant of self-breast examination in women of childbearing age on simpang tiga region pekanbaru. J. Community Health 2020, 28, 19–24. [Google Scholar]
  53. Siregar, R. Breast self-examination practice determinants (bse) to student in class xi public senior high school 3 karawang. J. Ilm. Kesehat. Inst. Med. Drgsuherman 2019, 1, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  54. Sunarni, N.; Srinayanti, Y.; Fitriani, A.; Silvia, R. Pengetahuan dan penatalaksanaan sadari pada mahasiswi prodi s1 keperawatan stikes muhammadiyah ciamis. Tunas-Tunas Ris. Kesehat. 2020, 10, 38–41. [Google Scholar]
  55. Supatmi, S. The relationship between knowledge levels and attitudes of young women on the implementation of sadari at sma negeri 1 belitang 3 oku timur in 2022. Bina Husada 2022, 8, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  56. Susanti, R. Prilaku sadari pada dosen di fakultas kesehatan universitas mohammad husni thamrin jakarta. J. Ilmu Kesehat. 2017, 9, 65–71. [Google Scholar]
  57. Tuelah, G.; Telew, A.; Bawiling, N. Hubungan pengetahuan dan sikap dengan tindakan sadari pada siswi kelas 12 sma negeri 2 bitung. J. Kesehat. Masy. UNIMA 2020, 1, 30–36. [Google Scholar]
  58. Wahyuni, S.; Meyasa, L. Faktor yang berhubungan dengan praktik pemeriksaan payudara sendiri (sadari) pada Remaja. J. SMART Kebidanan 2020, 7, 52–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wantini, N.A.; Indrayani, N. Pengetahuan tentang kanker payudara dan perilaku periksa payudara sendiri (sadari) pada remaja putri di sma negeri 1 turi, sleman, diy. Pros. Semin. Nas. 2017, 1, 362–369. [Google Scholar]
  60. Wulandari, F.; Ayu, S.M. Hubungan tingkat pengetahuan dan sikap dengan perilaku pemeriksaan payudara sendiri (sadari) mahasiswi. Pros. Semin. Nas. 2017, 3, 137–144. [Google Scholar]
  61. Zulaika, C.; Rochmayani, D.S. Factors related to conscious behavior in diii physiotherapy students. J. Ilm. STIKES Kendal 2021, 11, 117–122. [Google Scholar]
  62. Yuni, A.N. Influences of Regional Inequality in Education in Indonesia. Ph.D. Thesis, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  63. Koike, I.; Chompikul, J.; Thepthien, B.O.; Maikhan, N. Determinants of monthly breast self-examination among women in Samut Songkhram Province, Thailand. J. Public Health Dev. 2018, 16, 29–43. [Google Scholar]
  64. Ahmad, S.; Alloubani, A.; Abu-Sa’da, R.; Qutaiba, Y. Breast Self-Examination: Knowledge, Practice, and Beliefs Among Females in Jordan. SAGE Open Nurs 2022, 5, 237796082211245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Thaineua, V.; Ansusinha, T.; Auamkul, N.; Taneepanichskul, S.; Urairoekkun, C.; Jongvanich, J.; Chitapanarux, I. Impact of regular Breast Self-Examination on breast cancer size, stage, and mortality in Thailand. Breast J. 2020, 26, 822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Sarker, R.; Islam, S.; Moonajilin, M.S.; Rahman, M.; Gesesew, H.A.; Ward, P.R. Knowledge of breast cancer and breast self-examination practices and its barriers among university female students in Bangladesh: Findings from a cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0270417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Woynarowska-Sołdan, M.; Panczyk, M.; Iwanow, L.; Bączek, G.; Gałązkowski, R.; Gotlib, J. Breast self-examination among nurses in Poland and their reparation in this regard. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2019, 26, 450–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Altobelli, E.; Rapacchietta, L.; Angeletti, P.M.; Barbante, L.; Profeta, F.V.; Fagnano, R. Breast Cancer Screening Programmes across the WHO European Region: Differences among Countries Based on National Income Level. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  69. World Health Organization. State of Health Inequality in Indonesia. 2017. Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/259685 (accessed on 30 May 2023).
  70. Haji-Mahmoodi, M.; Montazeri, A.; Jarvandi, S.; Ebrahimi, M.; Haghighat, S.; Harirchi, I. Breast Self-Examination: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Among Female Health Care Workers in Tehran, Iran. Breast J. 2002, 8, 222–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Yavari, P.; Pourhoseingholi, M.A. Socioeconomic factors association with knowledge and practice of breast self-examination among Iranian women. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2008, 8, 618–622. [Google Scholar]
  72. Opoku, S.Y.; Benwell, M.; Yarney, J. Knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, behaviour and breast cancer screening practices in Ghana, West Africa. Pan Afr. Med. J. 2012, 11, 28. [Google Scholar]
  73. Fondjo, L.A.; Owusu-Afriyie, O.; Sakyi, S.A.; Wiafe, A.A.; Amankwaa, B.; Acheampong, E.; Ephraim, R.K.D.; Owiredu, W.K.B.A. Comparative Assessment of Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice of Breast Self-Examination among Female Secondary and Tertiary School Students in Ghana. Int. J. Breast Cancer 2018, 2018, 7502047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Amoran, O.E.; Toyobo, O.O. Predictors of breast self-examination as cancer prevention practice among women of reproductive age-group in a rural town in Nigeria. Niger. Med. J. 2015, 56, 185–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Raghupathi, V.; Raghupathi, W. The influence of education on health: An empirical assessment of OECD countries for the period 1995–2015. Arch. Public Health 2020, 78, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Fatimah, M.A.; Juni, M.H.; Rosliza, A.M. Factors associated with the practice of breast self-examination: A systematic review. Int. J. Public Health Clin. Sci. 2018, 5, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  77. Alwan, N.; Al-Attar, W.; Eliessa, R.; Madfaie, Z.; Tawfeeq, F. Knowledge, attitude and practice regarding breast cancer and breast self-examination among a sample of the educated population in Iraq. East. Mediterr. Health J. 2012, 18, 337–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Ferro, S.; Caroli, A.; Nanni, O.; Biggeri, A.; Gambi, A. A cross sectional survey on breast self examination practice, utilization of breast professional examination, mammography and associated factors in Romagna, Italy. Tumori J. 1992, 78, 98–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Harvey, B.J.; Miller, A.B.; Baines, C.J.; Corey, P.N. Effect of breast self-examination techniques on the risk of death from breast cancer. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 1997, 157, 1205–1212. [Google Scholar]
  80. Doganer, Y.C.; Aydogan, U.; Kilbas, Z.; Rohrer, J.E.; Sari, O.; Usterme, N.; Yuksel, S.; Akbulut, H.; Balkan, S.M.; Saglam, K.; et al. Predictors Affecting Breast Self-Examination Practice among Turkish Women. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2014, 15, 9021–9025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  81. Al-Naggar, R.A.; Al-Naggar, D.H.; Bobryshev, Y.V.; Chen, R.; Assabri, A. Practice and barriers toward breast self-examination among young Malaysian women. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2011, 12, 1173–1178. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  82. Abolfotouh, M.A.; Banimustafa, A.A.; Mahfouz, A.A.; Al-Assiri, M.H.; Al-Juhani, A.F.; Alaskar, A.S. Using the health belief model to predict breast self examination among Saudi women. BMC Public Health 2015, 15, 1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Diagnostics 13 02577 g001
Figure 1. Flow Chart of Article Selection.
Figure 1. Flow Chart of Article Selection.
Diagnostics 13 02577 g001
Diagnostics 13 02577 g002
Figure 2. Forest Plot of Overall BSE Prevalence. CI—Confidence Interval; df—Degree of Freedom; I2—I squared; IV—Inverse Variance; SE—Standard Error.
Figure 2. Forest Plot of Overall BSE Prevalence. CI—Confidence Interval; df—Degree of Freedom; I2—I squared; IV—Inverse Variance; SE—Standard Error.
Diagnostics 13 02577 g002
Diagnostics 13 02577 g003
Figure 3. Forest Plot of BSE Prevalence in (A) Java vs. (B) non-Java Region. CI—Confidence Interval; df—Degree of Freedom; I2—I squared; IV—Inverse Variance; SE—Standard Error.
Figure 3. Forest Plot of BSE Prevalence in (A) Java vs. (B) non-Java Region. CI—Confidence Interval; df—Degree of Freedom; I2—I squared; IV—Inverse Variance; SE—Standard Error.
Diagnostics 13 02577 g003
Diagnostics 13 02577 g004aDiagnostics 13 02577 g004b
Figure 4. Forest Plot of BSE prevalence analysis of BSE practice based on the study population: (A) university students, (B) school-aged students, (C) fertile women and public health center-based (PHC), and (D) fertile women in communities. CI—Confidence Interval; df—Degree of Freedom; I2—I squared; IV—Inverse Variance; SE—Standard Error.
Figure 4. Forest Plot of BSE prevalence analysis of BSE practice based on the study population: (A) university students, (B) school-aged students, (C) fertile women and public health center-based (PHC), and (D) fertile women in communities. CI—Confidence Interval; df—Degree of Freedom; I2—I squared; IV—Inverse Variance; SE—Standard Error.
Diagnostics 13 02577 g004aDiagnostics 13 02577 g004b
Diagnostics 13 02577 g005aDiagnostics 13 02577 g005b
Figure 5. Forest Plot to analyze the correlation between (A) knowledge, (B) attitude, and (C) family history of BC, each to BSE Prevalence. CI—Confidence Interval; df—Degree of Freedom; I2—I squared; IV—Inverse Variance; SE—Standard Error.
Figure 5. Forest Plot to analyze the correlation between (A) knowledge, (B) attitude, and (C) family history of BC, each to BSE Prevalence. CI—Confidence Interval; df—Degree of Freedom; I2—I squared; IV—Inverse Variance; SE—Standard Error.
Diagnostics 13 02577 g005aDiagnostics 13 02577 g005b
Diagnostics 13 02577 g006
Figure 6. Forest Plot to analyze correlation between (A) family support, (B) information exposure, and (C) education status, each to BSE prevalence. CI—Confidence Interval; df—Degree of Freedom; I2—I squared; IV—Inverse Variance; SE—Standard Error.
Figure 6. Forest Plot to analyze correlation between (A) family support, (B) information exposure, and (C) education status, each to BSE prevalence. CI—Confidence Interval; df—Degree of Freedom; I2—I squared; IV—Inverse Variance; SE—Standard Error.
Diagnostics 13 02577 g006
Diagnostics 13 02577 g007
Figure 7. The national prevalence funnel plot. SE—Standard Error.
Figure 7. The national prevalence funnel plot. SE—Standard Error.
Diagnostics 13 02577 g007
Table 1. Summarized data characteristics of the included studies of breast self-examination practice and its determinants among women in Indonesia.
Table 1. Summarized data characteristics of the included studies of breast self-examination practice and its determinants among women in Indonesia.
Authors, YearStudy Area, RegionStudy SettingStudy DesignStudy PopulationAgeSample Size
Adimuntja NP et al. 2022 [21]Jayapura, Non-JavaUniversity-basedCross-sectionalStudents18–23250
Ajeng A et al. 2017 [22]Tangerang, JavaSchool-basedCross-sectionalStudentsNI72
Amelia C et al. 2021 [23]Batam, Non-JavaPHC-basedCross-sectionalFertile womenNI92
Angrainy R, 2017 [24]Pekanbaru, Non-JavaSchool-basedCross-sectionalStudents15–17 50
Arafah ABR et al. 2017 [25]Surabaya, JavaCommunity-basedCross-sectionalFertile women40–50 100
Artikasari L et al. 2021 [26]Jambi, Non-JavaPHC-basedCross-sectionalFertile womenNI98
Cane PS et al. 2019 [27]Aceh, Non-JavaCommunity-basedCross-sectionalFertile women20–45110
Dewi IC et al. 2017 [28]Denpasar, Non-JavaPHC-basedCross-sectionalFertile women20–4994
Dewi R et al. 2021 [29]Sukabumi, JavaSchool-basedCross-sectionalStudents15–18272
Dewi TK et al. 2019 [30]Surabaya, JavaCommunity-basedCross-sectionalFertile women20–601967
Dewi TK et al. 2022 [31]Surabaya, JavaCommunity-basedCross-sectionalFertile women18–61204
Fahriani M et al. 2021 [32]Bengkulu, Non-JavaPHC-basedCross-sectionalFertile womenNI 47
Fatrin T et al. 2020 [33]Palembang, Non-JavaSchool-basedCross-sectionalStudentsNI92
Ginting L, 2019 [34]Medan, Non-JavaUniversity-basedCross-sectionalStudents17–2532
Hanifah AN, 2015 [35]Surakarta, JavaPHC-basedCross-sectionalFertile women15–49147
Herman IVI et al. 2019 [36]Kupang, Non-JavaUniversity-basedCross-sectionalStudents16–2482
Immawati et al. 2020 [37]Lampung, Non-JavaUniversity-basedCross-sectionalStudents17–21196
Karnawati PWW et al. 2022 [38]Mataram, Non-JavaCommunity-basedCross-sectionalFertile women20–49170
Khairunnissa A et al. 2017 [39]Jakarta, JavaUniversity-basedCross-sectionalStudentsNI108
Khotimah S, 2019 [40]Tangerang, JavaPHC-basedCross-sectionalFertile women15–5098
Kris D, 2019 [41]Kediri, JavaSchool-basedCross-sectionalStudentsNI67
Kurniawati T et al. 2021 [42]Lampung, Non-JavaCommunity-basedCross-sectionalFertile women15–2120
Kusumaningrum T et al. 2018 [43]Surakarta, JavaUniversity-basedCross-sectionalStudents20–23106
Lula F et al. 2018 [44]Jember, JavaUniversity-basedCross-sectionalStudents≥20227
Mularsih S et al. 2017 [45]Semarang, JavaCommunity-basedCross-sectionalFertile women15–4042
Puspitasari YD et al. 2021 [46]Jember, JavaCommunity-basedCross-sectionalTeenagers10–1960
Riadinata et al. 2021 [47]Bantul, JavaCommunity-basedCross-sectionalFertile women20–3591
Sari IG et al. 2022 [48]Bogor, JavaSchool-basedCross-sectionalStudentsNI50
Sari RJ et al. 2017 [49]Medan, Non-JavaCommunity-basedCross-sectionalFertile women20–4962
Sari WY et al. 2022 [50]Palembang, Non-JavaSchool-basedCross-sectionalStudentsNI63
Sebayang W et al. 2018 [51]Medan, Non-JavaPHC-basedCross-sectionalFertile women25–4950
Siboro YK et al. 2018 [52]Pekanbaru, Non-JavaCommunity-basedCross-sectionalFertile women15–49131
Siregar R, 2019 [53]Karawang, JavaSchool-basedCross-sectionalStudentsNI320
Sunarni N et al. 2020 [54]Ciamis, JavaUniversity-basedCross-sectionalStudentsNI76
Supatmi, 2021 [55]Palembang, Non-JavaSchool-basedCross-sectionalStudentsNI62
Susanti R, 2017 [56]Jakarta, JavaUniversity-basedCross-sectionalStudentsNI118
Tuelah G et al. 2020 [57]Manado, Non-JavaSchool-basedCross-sectionalStudentsNI138
Wahyuni S et al. 2020 [58]Palangkaraya, Non-JavaCommunity-basedCross-sectionalTeenagersNI108
Wantini NA et al. 2017 [59]Sleman, JavaSchool-basedCross-sectionalStudentsNI62
Wulandari F et al. 2017 [60]Kuningan, JavaUniversity-basedCross-sectionalStudents20–30170
Zulaika C et al. 2021 [61]Semarang, JavaUniversity-basedCross-sectionalStudents17–2147
NI—No Information; PHC—Public Health Center.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Azhar, Y.; Hanafi, R.V.; Lestari, B.W.; Halim, F.S. Breast Self-Examination Practice and Its Determinants among Women in Indonesia: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression. Diagnostics 2023, 13, 2577. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13152577

AMA Style

Azhar Y, Hanafi RV, Lestari BW, Halim FS. Breast Self-Examination Practice and Its Determinants among Women in Indonesia: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression. Diagnostics. 2023; 13(15):2577. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13152577

Chicago/Turabian Style

Azhar, Yohana, Ricarhdo Valentino Hanafi, Bony Wiem Lestari, and Freda Susana Halim. 2023. "Breast Self-Examination Practice and Its Determinants among Women in Indonesia: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression" Diagnostics 13, no. 15: 2577. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13152577

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop